Dissertation Research: On Interdisciplinary Strategies at Research-Intensive Universities

这项工程、科学和技术项目的社会维度学位论文改进补助金将使学位论文学生能够在四个主要研究机构进行案例研究，以便更接近完成他的博士论文。本文主要研究大学本科化研究中的跨学科问题。培养跨学科已经成为联邦机构和研究密集型大学的一个值得称赞的目标。多年来，国家科学基金会(NSF)通过中心项目和其他倡议(布林特，即将推出；哈克特，2000年；拉图卡，2001年)支持跨学科。在本世纪初，美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)在“NIH路线图”(2003年，美国国立卫生研究院)中明确承诺跨学科。几乎在同一时间，研究型大学的战略计划越来越强调跨学科学术(Feller，2002，即将推出)。然而，大学的基本组织框架建立在学科和学术部门之间的联系上(BLAU，1994；Clark，1983,1987,1993,1995；Geiger，1986；Veysey，1965)。因此，外部赞助和大学领导层对促进跨学科的承诺都表明，有必要促使科学家的工作方式发生变化。大学是否选择响应跨学科的呼吁，在一定程度上是机构战略、当地文化和组织氛围的问题(Brint，即将出版；Feller，2002，即将出版)。目前，关于哪些机构更有可能组织起来进行跨学科努力，以及它们采用了什么组织战略，人们知之甚少。以前对跨学科的研究主要集中在教师个体作为分析单位(Klein，1990；Lattuca，2001)，跨学科研究中心的工作模式或有效性(Ailes，Roessner，&amp；Coward，2000；Newell，Saxberg，&amp；Birnbaum，1975；Rhoten，2003)，或所谓的知识生产的范式转变(Gibons et al.，1994；Weingart&amp；Stehr，2000)。关于支持跨学科的机构的零星研究结果(Brint，即将出版；Feller，2002，即将出版)无法理解组织变革和适应的一般模式。一所大学对跨学科的官方承诺与其开展的跨学科研究的赞助数量之间是否存在关系？大学采用了哪些组织策略来促进跨学科科学的发展？这项研究将通过对大学战略计划的内容分析和对NSF跨学科研究拨款分配的分析来解决这些问题。内容分析将揭示官方机构对跨学科的承诺的性质和程度，对国家科学基金资助的项目的分析将为大学的跨境工作提供客观衡量标准。总而言之，这些分析将作为机构对跨学科或学科专业化战略的重视程度的索引。为了深入了解跨学科科学的组织承诺和安排，研究人员还将对正在对跨学科战略作出机构承诺的选定大学进行案例研究。这些案例研究将是拟议中的调查的核心，揭示了潜在的新结构，这些结构正在改变教职员工的日常工作环境。总而言之，这项研究将阐明大学系统和选定的机构对跨学科赞助的反应，这似乎是美国和国际上未来研究资金的一个突出趋势(Weingart&Amp；Stehr，2000)。研究结果将对致力于研究和管理研究密集型大学的高等教育学者和管理人员有所帮助，为实践和理论建设提供信息，使其适应传统学术结构，促进跨学科研究模式。如果目前对跨学科科学的支持在未来持续--或可能增加--对于希望有效参与研究经济的大学来说，组织结构对跨界工作的相关性将得到加强。拟议的调查结果将通过高等教育管理领域的演示文稿和出版物传播，并将被列入该领域领先方案的研究生课程。

This Societal Dimensions of Engineering, Science, and Technology Program Dissertation Improvement Grant will enable a dissertation student to conduct case studies at four major research institutions in order to move closer to completing his Ph.D. dissertation. The dissertation focuses on interdisciplinarity in university-based research. Fostering interdisciplinarity has become a laudable goal for federal agencies and research-intensive universities alike. The National Science Foundation (NSF) has supported interdisciplinarity for a number of years, through center programs and other initiatives (Brint, forthcoming; Hackett, 2000; Lattuca, 2001). In the early 2000s, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) made an explicit commitment to interdisciplinarity in the "NIH Roadmap" (National Institutes of Health, 2003). At about the same time, strategic plans of research universities have increasingly emphasized interdisciplinary scholarship (Feller, 2002, forthcoming). Universities, however, ground their basic organizational frameworks in the nexus between disciplines and academic departments (Blau, 1994; Clark, 1983, 1987, 1993, 1995; Geiger, 1986; Veysey, 1965). Both external sponsorship and university leadership commitment to fostering interdisciplinarity therefore suggest the need to induce change in the way scientists work. Whether universities choose to respond to calls for interdisciplinarity is partly a matter of institutional strategy, local culture, and organizational climates (Brint, forthcoming; Feller, 2002, forthcoming). Presently, little is known about which institutions are more likely to organize for interdisciplinary efforts and what organizational strategies they have employed. Previous studies of interdisciplinarity have focused on individual faculty members as the unit of analysis (Klein, 1990; Lattuca, 2001), on the work patterns or effectiveness of interdisciplinary research centers (Ailes, Roessner, & Coward, 2000; Newell, Saxberg, & Birnbaum, 1975; Rhoten, 2003), or purported paradigmatic shifts in the production of knowledge (Gibbons et al., 1994; Weingart & Stehr, 2000). Scattered findings on institutions that support interdisciplinarity (Brint, forthcoming; Feller, 2002, forthcoming) do not allow for understanding of general patterns of organizational change and adaptation. Is there a relationship between a university's official commitment to interdisciplinarity and the amount of sponsored interdisciplinary research it carries out? What are some of the organizational strategies that universities have employed to foster interdisciplinary science? This study will address these questions through a content analysis of universities' strategic plans and an analysis of the distribution of NSF interdisciplinary research grants. The content analysis will reveal the nature and extent of official institutional commitments to interdisciplinarity, and the analysis of NSF-funded projects will provide an objective measure of universities' boundary-spanning work. Together, these analyses will serve as an index of institutional emphasis on interdisciplinary or disciplinary-specialization strategies. To provide an in-depth understanding of organizational commitments and arrangements for interdisciplinary science, the researcher will also conduct case studies of selected universities that are making institutional commitments to interdisciplinary strategies. The case studies will be central to the proposed investigation, revealing potentially new structures that are altering the usual settings for faculty work. In its totality, the study will elucidate how the university system and selected institutions have reacted to sponsorship to interdisciplinarity, in what seems to be a salient trend for future research funding in the U.S. and internationally (Weingart & Stehr, 2000). Findings will be useful for higher education scholars and administrators dedicated to the study and the management of research-intensive universities, informing both practice and theory-building on adaptations of traditional academic structures to promote interdisciplinary modes of research. If the current support for interdisciplinary science is sustained - or perhaps increased - in the future, the relevance of organizational structures for boundary-spanning work will be heightened for universities that wish to participate effectively in the research economy. Results of the proposed investigation will be disseminated through presentations and publications in the field of higher education administration, and will also be included in a graduate-level course of a leading program in the field.